36 comments:

Oh, well, so there are a few places left in the world where males are preferred to females.

Abortion, we must remember (as we are constantly told by feminists) is a sacred right. Who are you, you fucking chauvinist, to suggest that you have any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. It's her body, pig!

So, leave Indian women alone to do as they please with their bodies.

And, here's to the Indians for preferring males to females! Pretty refreshing after a couple of decades of funny TV shows of women kicking men in the balls.

History is repeating itself one time too many. We need our valuable women. But today's intelligentsia are morphing into mini Dr Strangeloves. When faced with a crisis, their answer is to take the pretty women and strong men into hideouts their control and abandon the rest of the world to destruction.

This is too often ignored in the abortion debate: if abortion is allowed, it WILL be used for preferential selection, of one kind or another. How can one simultaneously say, "Abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" and "Sex selection through abortion is an unacceptable practive"?

"How can one simultaneously say, "Abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" and "Sex selection through abortion is an unacceptable practive"?"

It is easy as long as you do not think too much. Or as long as you are not troubled by reality and live in a world of ideas. Or as long as you hate brown people. Recall that Planned Parenthood started as a racist eugenics organization and puts most of its abortion offices in minority neighborhoods.

I know, we invent a discipline so banal even they can claim to understand it. Then we give them make work McJobs where their only responsibility is to regurgitate their training to the next crop of useless ones.

In fact, this sounds like such a good idea we should replicate it for everyone. The only question is what do we call this? It has to be catchy so the UO's don't figure it out. Can anyone help me figure out what to call this discipline?

If there were a genetic test to determine homosexuality and, as a result, homosexuals were routinely aborted, you can bet that the banning of abortion would be pretty high on the gay rights agenda... Here is another dog that doesn't bark. I'm pretty sure that gendercide has happened, on occasion, in this country. And no feminist makes an issue of it.....Also I have never heard a feminist demand that we stay in Afghanistan in order to oppose the rule of the Taliban. I sometimes get the idea that feminists are not against sexism so much as they are against white men.

Isn't our host, Ann Althouse, pro-abortion? I guess the term they use to describe themselves is "pro-choice", but only for the mother is it a "choice".

Shaka, the Emperor of the Zulu Nation, preferred his soldiers to be unmarried men. Made them more ferocious.

Funny, feminist prefer abortion and parents are more likely to abort a female baby.

I used to teach a probability lesson with a simulation: the simulation was that parents could have children until they had a boy. So if their first child was a boy, that was it. If the first 10 were girls, and the 11th was a boy, that was it. Turned out that average family size was around 2.

The phrase "abortion is an acceptable practice in all cases" returns zero hits on Google.

I know it's branching off topic, but this line of arguing (the "safe, legal, and rare" approach) has always bothered me. Either it's OK or it's not. If it's not OK in any circumstances, why not? You can throw out a few medical notes or talk about money, but the only real reason that it makes us uncomfortable enough to call it less than idea is that the baby has value, as a human being, and that it's distruction is wrong.

The reason you're confused is that pro-choicers are saying "I want people to be able to go through this medical procedure" and you're hearing "I want people to go through this medical procedure"."

No. She's confused because there's no reason for anyone to claim an appendectomy is or is not socially acceptable. You're trying to straddle the issue ignoring that the only justification of social approbrium also justifies illegality.

Marshal, I have no idea what point you think you're making. You are not making any sense.

Nobody, except possibly you, is suggesting we consider whether or not they are rare when considering if they should be legal. The statement is "safe, legal, AND rare", not "safe and legal IF rare".

Medical procedures should be safe, because only insane people want surgical procedures to be unsafe. They should be legal, because people have an inalienable right to control their bodies. And they should be rare, because any sane person would rather prevent a medical condition than treat it with surgery.

"Nobody, except possibly you, is suggesting we consider whether or not they are rare when considering if they should be legal."

I agree, which is why your explanation of what "rare" meant in the Clintonian quote is wrong. In fact it was a clumsy attempt at triangulation. Clinton was trying to appease those on the right by staking out a middle ground, keeping abortion "rare".

I agree, which is why your explanation of what "rare" meant in the Clintonian quote is wrong.

No, I'm entirely correct in my interpretation of the quote. The accompanying explanation was that birth control and adoption should be encouraged, but abortion should be available to those who want it.

There was no suggestion that we look down on people who chose abortion, nor was there a suggestion that we try to make it rare by restricting it.